Replies

I link/have linked to almost all of these sites. Golly, does that make me a "terrorist" and/or "extremist?"
No, it doesn't, thank God (for life).

THANKS to Smartass for pointing to this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1668270/posts

===
===

ON THE NET...

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/eye-on-extremism.xml

SNIPPET: "Terrorists and Extremist Organizations
Profiles of 15 Leading Anti-Choice Organizations
Biographies"

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-040901-anti-choice-profiles.xml

SNIPPET: "Table Of Contents:
American Life League (ALL)
Americans United for Life (AUL)
Christian Coalition
Concerned Women for America (CWA)
Eagle Forum
Family Research Council (FRC)
Feminists for Life of America (FFL)
Focus on the Family
Human Life International (HLI)
Life Dynamics Incorporated (LDI)
Missionaries to the Preborn
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Operation Save America (formerly known as Operation Rescue)
Pro-Life Action League (PLAL)
STOPP International, aka STOPP Planned Parenthood"

Note: The following text is a quote:
---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1668713/posts

House Protects God in Pledge of Allegiance
Fox News ^ | 6/19/06

Posted on 07/19/2006 2:06:42 PM PDT by bnelson44

WASHINGTON — The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."

The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167. It now goes to the Senate where its future is uncertain.

"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

I link/have linked to almost all of these sites. Golly, does that make me a "terrorist" and/or "extremist?" No, it doesn't, thank God (for life).

You're not alone with your beliefs concerning linking to those websites Cindy. Liberal extremists obviously are attempting to demean Christians and their beliefs anyway possible - this being another way. Life is very precious.

Federal Appellate Court Hands Traditional Marriage Another Victory

ANN ARBOR, MI – On Friday, July 14th, a federal appeals court reversed a lower federal court ruling that had struck down Nebraska’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. The constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages had been passed by seventy per cent of that state’s voters in 2000.

In Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reinstated Nebraska's constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In a first such ruling by a federal appeals court, a three-judge panel unanimously held that Nebraska voters had not violated the Constitution by seeking to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, since "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests."

The opinion was written by Chief Judge James B. Loken and joined by Circuit Judges Bowman and Smith. Writing for the court, Judge Loken held that the express intent of traditional marriage laws to encourage heterosexual couples to bear and raise children in committed relationships is a legitimate state interest.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, advised the Nebraska Attorney General's office in the case, and also filed an amicus brief arguing that the Nebraska marriage protection amendment did not violate the Constitution's equal protection jurisprudence as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). The Eighth Circuit panel spent the majority of its opinion on precisely this issue, agreeing with the Thomas More Law Center that the Nebraska constitutional amendment is "rationally related to a legitimate government interest" under the Romer analysis.

According to Kim Daniels, the Trial Counsel for the Law Center who authored the amicus brief on behalf of the Law Center, "The Eighth Circuit's unanimous opinion in Bruning represents a significant step forward in the fight to preserve traditional marriage. The Nebraska voters who overwhelmingly passed this amendment have been vindicated, and it's heartening to finally see a federal appeals court affirm that citizens have the right to enact laws preserving the institution of marriage."

Amicus briefs supporting Nebraska’s position were submitted by eleven other states, numerous public interest organizations, the Nebraska Catholic Conference and members of the Nebraska Legislature.

Earlier in the month, the highest courts in New York and Georgia rejected attempts to gain marriage rights for same- sex couples.

On July 5th, the Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit against Michigan State University (MSU) challenging that institution’s recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships for the purpose of providing benefits. The lawsuit claims that MSU’s policy violates Michigan’s Marriage Amendment, passed by the voters in 2004, which provides that “the union of one man and one women in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,” as well as Michigan statues that prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages.